My son starts to draw a picture with sidewalk chalk. I ask him some questions and wait for him to ask a few questions back. He tells me about his picture and then I ask him a few more reflective questions. I listen while he talks. His assessment is descriptive, analytical and evaluative, all within a matter of minutes. Learning is an internal, cognitive process and an external product. He is motivated intrinsically (the desire to create something new, the fun of learning) and extrinsically (the desire to impress his friends). One simple picture and I’m struck by the layers of paradox within it.
It has me thinking about the false dichotomies I often see in education regarding teaching, learning and school. Here are a few that come to mind:
- Learning as a skill, a concept, a process or a product: So many arguments I see online treat learning as if it’s always one or the other, when it is often a blend of those.
- Learning as an observable behavior versus learning as a cognitive process: There is a real danger in viewing all learning as something that must be observed externally and missing out on a mental process and there is also a danger in forgetting that learning at some point must be “shown” somehow
- Teaching as an art and a science: I’m starting to think this dichotomy is ridiculous, period. There is a real science to any art and there is an art to any science. The distinction is often a relic of an Enlightenment mindset.
- Learning can always be quantified with a metric versus learning is seldom measurable and should be looked at through a qualitative and descriptive lens: I’ve seen bloggers who think that everything must be measured and others who think all tests are evil. There is often little nuance on either side.
- Learning as linear or connective: I’ve heard the tree versus rhizome point way too often. Why not both? If you’re going to look to nature, can’t there be a place for both trees and rhizomes? Stories are powerful, profound and linear. Conceptual attainment is often web-based.
- Education as a system, a structure or a series of relationships: Often this plays itself out in an unnecessary argument about changing culture versus changing structures or dealing with people (teacher is most important) or pedagogy.
- Assessment as something descriptive, analytical or evaluative: Sometimes a student needs to describe the learning, but other times he or she needs to learn that “this is the wrong or right way.” When assessment becomes either/or, we miss out on a broad, holistic approach that could ultimately help students think better about their learning.
- Practical and theoretical: All theory is rooted in practical observations and has practical implications. All practices come from some theoretical mindset. Busting on one or the other seems kind-of silly.
- Motivation being primarily extrinsic or intrinsic: I also see a dichotomy sometimes in negative or positive reinforcement. Spend some time and ask honestly about motivation and intentions and it almost always gets muddled. Our minds and motives are complex.
- Freedom and guidance: Personal learning advocates (myself included) often talk about the need for student interest or inquiry in driving learning. Yet, there is an equally valid point in the will of the group and the guidance of a teacher to help students learn what they need to know rather than what they want to know.
- Classroom management and classroom leadership: I’ve made this distinction before, but I think it’s unfair. Great teachers do both. There is a real need to manage a group and let them lead themselves or to lead a group toward a goal while helping students self-manage.
- Knowledge constructed internally versus externally: Yes, we construct knowledge internally, but we are heavily influenced by external stimuli. True, prior knowledge is critical, but so is the introduction of a new text, concept, etc.
- Universalism of theory versus theory as context-dependent: We have to recognize that there are some practices that work better than others while also being critical about the context and the role it plays in the construction of research and the implementation of theory.
- Transformation and restoration: We’ve lost some great vintage ideas and we have some great things going for us. At the same time, the system needs transformation. We need a dialogue that includes visions for the future while also bringing in great ideas from the past.